If an individual is unwed, under 18, and does not attend school or live with an adult, they may not receive benefits.
Other federally assisted programs, such as food stamps, social services, and Supplemental Security Income were cut by billions of dollars.
Benefits previously available to legal immigrants are no longer available.
Federal money given to the states is now capped .
(Post, J. E., Lawrence, A.T., Weber, J., 2000).
The ultimate goal was to get people out of the welfare systems and into jobs. On the downside, many of the other programs designed to help people were cut, such as food stamps. In addition, there is a cap on Federal money that is given to states, and this money will not account for inflation.
Proponents of the Welfare Law believed that the old system was contributing to mothers having babies out of wedlock. In addition, the benefits increase with each child, so they believed that this influenced women to continue to have more babies and live in the welfare system. Statistics show the opposite. The average welfare and food stamp monthly payments are lower than poverty level; states with low welfare benefits have a higher rate of illegitimacy; and countries with higher level of benefits, such as Canada, have lower illegitimacy rates (Post, J. E., Lawrence, A.T., Weber, J., 2000).
Advocates of welfare cuts believe that individuals on welfare do not have good morals or a good work ethic. Research studies show that most welfare recipients bring in extra money from various activities such as house cleaning, childcare, or selling items that they make (Post, J. E., Lawrence, A.T., Weber, J., 2000). In addition, a lot of individuals receiving welfare cannot find jobs that pay them enough to be independent of the welfare system. .
Has the new Welfare Act proved to be beneficial in the United States? Proponents of the Act believe it has worked. Since 1996, more mothers are working, welfare caseloads have dropped, and poverty rates declined.
